An exemption-laden bill addressing discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people was passed Wednesday by the Republican-dominated Utah state legislature. Gov. Gary Herbert (R) is expect to sign the bill into law during a special ceremony Thursday evening, according to the Associated Press.

In addition to approval from members of the local LGBT community, the bill—known as the “Utah compromise”—had the support of Mormon Church leaders due to its religious exemptions.

The bill adds “gender identity” and “sexual orientation” to the state’s non-discrimination laws for employment and housing, but includes exceptions for “freedom of expressive association or the free exercise of religion.” Not included in the bill are protections for members of the LGBT community from discrimination in public accommodations and health insurance.

Among those covered by the religious exemptions are religious organizations, corporations, associations, societies, and educational institutions, as well as individual religious leaders. The Boy Scouts of America and its councils, chapters, or subsidiaries are specifically exempt from the protections.

“We are all people and I believe we all deserve protection equally,” Rep. Brad Dee (R-Ogden) said when presenting the bill to the house before the vote, reported KSTU.

SB 296 was passed by the state Senate by a 23-5 last week, and then the bill was passed by the House Wednesday on a 65-10 vote. Republicans hold a 24-5 majority in the senate and a 65-12 majority in the house.

The few lawmakers who spoke in opposition to the bill questioned the rapid time frame it took to pass through the legislature. “This is a deep constitutional dive in a very shallow pool of time and process,” said Rep. Ken Ivory (R-West Jordan), reported the Salt Lake Tribune.

After final passage, the house gallery, full of the legislation’s supporters, erupted in applause.

The Mormon Church released a statement praising the legislation, saying it “reflects the very best of collaboration and statesmanship from groups and individuals who may not always agree on all things, but who have passed landmark legislation that balances religious freedom and antidiscrimination.”

“It is a landmark,” Sarah Warbelow, legal director of the Human Rights Campaign, told TheNew York Times. “This is a Republican-controlled legislature with a Republican governor, and this will be the first time that a Republican-controlled process has led to extension of protections for LGBT people.”

SB 296 was drafted after negotiations between state lawmakers, LGBT rights advocates, and the Mormon Church.

SB 296’s sponsors, Sen. Steve Urquhart (R-St. George) and Senate Majority Whip Stuart Adams (R-Layton), said that the bill balanced individual religious beliefs and discrimination protections for members of the LGBT community. The Mormon Church endorsed the legislation, saying in a statement that the bill struck a “balance.”

Urquhart had sponsored similar legislation to SB 296 three times over the past six years.

The legislation comes at a time when Republicans in other states are moving to limit rights and protections for the LGBT community.

Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback (R) signed an executive order last month that rescinded discrimination protections for state employees based on sexual orientation and gender identity, and a bill is advancing through the Alabama legislature that would prevent clergy and other religious officials from being required to officiate marriages to which they have religious objections and protect them from being sued for refusing to officiate.

During the press conference announcing the legislation, the state’s only openly gay lawmaker, Sen. Jim Dabakis (D-Salt Lake City), said that the bill sent a message. “This bill is a model—not just of legislation, but more importantly of how to bridge the cultural rift tearing America apart,” Dabakis said.

At the same press conference, Adams foreshadowed the impact of passing LGBT discrimination protections in such a deep-red state. “If Utah can do this, then in my opinion it can be done anywhere else in the nation,” Adams said.

]]>http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2015/03/12/utah-governor-sign-lgbt-anti-discrimination-bill-religious-exemptions/feed/5Indian High Court Decriminalizes Homosexualityhttp://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2009/07/02/indian-high-court-decriminalizes-homosexuality/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=indian-high-court-decriminalizes-homosexuality
http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2009/07/02/indian-high-court-decriminalizes-homosexuality/#commentsThu, 02 Jul 2009 12:45:00 +0000The High Court of Delhi found that Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalized consensual sexual acts of adults in private, violated the Indian Constitution. This ruling decriminalizes homosexuality in India and is being hailed by advocates in India and worldwide as the first step toward equality for gay, lesbian, and transgender persons in that country.

With thanks to our colleagues at Amnesty International for the information contained in this post.

Today, July 2, 2009, the High Court of Delhi found that Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalized consensual sexual acts of adults in private, violated the Indian Constitution. This ruling decriminalizes homosexuality in India and is being hailed by advocates in India and worldwide as the first step toward equality for gay, lesbian, and transgender persons in that country. And with this decision, India becomes the latest country to join the global trend towards decriminalization.

"The decision is a significant step toward ensuring that people in India can express their sexual orientation or gender identity without fear or discrimination," said Amnesty International in a press release.

Amnesty quotes the Naz Foundation, an Indian sexual rights organization which brought
the case against Section 377, as stating:

It’s an
incredible day, it’s been a long battle. Today homosexuality has been
decriminalized but not legalized. It is a baby step but finally India
has entered the 21st century.

"This British colonial legacy has done untold harm to generations of individuals in India and across the Commonwealth” said Madhu Malhotra, Deputy Director, Asia Pacific, Amnesty International (AI).

As explained by AI, the ruling overturns a 19th century British colonial law which bans engagement in consensual sex with an individual of the same sex as “carnal intercourse against the order of nature”.

Amnesty stated that:

The law had been used to stifle the work of organizations working on HIV/AIDS prevention in India. The court rejected the law as discriminatory and “against constitutional morality."

Amnesty and other advocates are calling on the government to begin immediately to implement the law, in part, according to Malhotra, by starting to:

address abuse and discrimination by police and other officials and take measures to end discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in access to economic, social and cultural rights, including housing, employment and health services.

According to Amnesty’s report, the court’s ruling rejected every argument put forward by the government in defence of the law. It found that section 377, the law criminalizing homosexuality, reflected an understanding of sexual orientation that is “at odds with the current scientific and professional understanding”.

In particular, the government’s contention that the measure helped stop the spread of HIV/AIDS is “completely unfounded” and “based on incorrect and wrong notions,” the court said.

The court acknowledged that Section 377 has been used to “brutalis[e]” members of the gay community and other men who have sex with men, abuses that have long been documented by local human rights defenders and Amnesty International, among others.

The Judges ruled that popular morality or public disapproval of certain acts is not a valid justification for restriction of the fundamental rights set forth in the Indian Constitution.

India has no laws specifically criminalizing child sexual abuse and has used Section 377 to address this gap. The court’s ruling now restricts section 377 to cases of rape and child abuse. Amnesty International is urging lawmakers to rewrite the law to deal explicitly with those crimes.

Amnesty has further called on those countries that continue to criminalize homosexuality to follow India’s example and repeal their own laws, the majority of which remain within Commonwealth countries.

For more information see the Amnesty report: Love, hate and the law: Decriminalizing homosexuality (http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/POL30/003/2008/en)
Public Document

]]>
Via the Twitter feed belonging to Mara Keisling, president of the National Center for Transgender Equality: an inclusive ENDA, the bill to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity and expression in workplaces, was re-introduced in Congress today.

According to Keisling, Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), the bill’s sponsor, is "very confident of ENDA vote in House this calendar year." At a press conference following the bill’s introduction, Frank was asked whether the protections for gender identity and expression would be stripped this year in an effort to make ENDA more palatable, as they were the last time an ENDA was considered (with support from the Human Rights Campaign). "No — we are beyond that," Keisling says Frank responded.

Activists have struggled over whether or not protections around gender identity should be, can be, and will be included in non-discrimination bills that protect sexual orientation since the very first city ordinances to protect queer people were written, I discovered when I wrote about the history of the relationship between the fight for lesbian and gay rights and transgender rights for The American Prospect. The best way I’ve ever seen this question framed is by Shannon Minter, an attorney at the National Center for Lesbian Rights, who wrote in his groundbreaking essay, Do Transsexuals Dream of Gay Rights?, "The question that calls for explanation is not whether transgender
people can justify their claims to gay rights, but rather how did a movement launched by bull daggers, drag queens
and transsexuals in 1969 end up viewing transgender people as outsiders
less than 30 years later?"

Let’s hope that Frank is right, and this time around there’s no question that we can’t jettison protections for gender identity without fundamentally compromising ENDA’s liberatory promise.

]]>http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2009/06/24/inclusive-enda-introduced-we-are-beyond-removing-gender-identity-protections-says-frank/feed/0Kalamazoo Commission Set to Move on Anti-Discrimination Ordinancehttp://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2009/06/05/kalamazoo-commission-set-move-antidiscrimination-ordinance/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=kalamazoo-commission-set-move-antidiscrimination-ordinance
http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2009/06/05/kalamazoo-commission-set-move-antidiscrimination-ordinance/#commentsFri, 05 Jun 2009 08:00:00 +0000A special committee of the Kalamazoo City Commission is expected to move a controversial anti-discrimination ordinance back to the full commission for final reconsideration.

]]>
A special
committee of the City Commission in Kalamazoo, Mich., is expected to move a
controversial anti-discrimination ordinance back to the full commission
for final reconsideration. The ordinance was passed last December but
was promptly repealed when opponents collected enough signatures to put
the measure to another vote.

The ordinance was criticized by social conservatives because it
expanded anti-discrimination laws to include sexual orientation in
addition to gender identity and expression. The ordinance, unlike
similar local ordinances in the state, also specifically prohibits
discrimination on the basis of HIV status.

As a result of the petitioning process, city commissioners said they
would pass the ordinance again but created the special committee to
hear additional testimony about proposed changes to the law. That
committee held a special session for that purpose on March 11.

Sean Brier, a spokesman for Kalamazoo Alliance for Equality (KAFE),
said his group will be in attendance Wednesday night at another meeting
of the special committee.

"The subcommittee is reviewing language that has been proposed by
the city attorney, Clyde Anderson. Based on whatever recommendations
they get from him, they will decide on recommending or not recommending
to the full commission," Brier said.

But the controversy surrounding the anti-discrimination ordinance is
forcing a group pushing a ballot initiative related to marijuana use to
postpone its campaign for fear that a mobilized opposition to the
anti-discrimination ordinance could sink the pot measure as a result.

According to the Gazette, the reason for the suspended activity was simple:

But [organizer Louis Cloise] Stocking said organized
opposition is expected if the proposed ordinance creating a protected
class for gays, lesbians and transgender people in employment, housing
and public accommodations is placed on the ballot. That opposition, she
said, could have carried over to the marijuana-enforcement initiative.

Brier said the decision by the Kalamazoo Coalition for Pragmatic
Cannabis Laws to delay its initiative until next year had no reflection
on the support for the anti-discrimination ordinance.

"Our indication has been very positive towards an inclusive ordinance," he said.

]]>
Few things underscore the Supreme Court’s lack of diversity
more than the recent ruling in a pregnancy discrimination case, AT&T Corp. v. Hulteen. The case
examined the pension payments for a number of former female employees of AT&T
who had taken maternity leave before passage of the Pregnancy Discrimination
Act, which clarified that under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act pregnancy
discrimination counted as sex discrimination. Now, AT&T is defining unpaid
maternity of these employees as personal leave from the company. And the court has now ruled that such personal
leave doesn’t and shouldn’t count toward these women’s pensions. Justice David Souter, who recently announced
his retirement from the court and has generally been thought of as favorable
toward women’s rights, wrote the opinion.

"This was not one of Justice Souter’s finest moments," said
Harper Jean Tobin, a staff attorney for the Herbert Semmel Federal Rights
Project of the National Senior Citizens Law Center and has written about the
case for the American Constitution Society’s blog. "Hulteen is a bad decision and has a significant impact on a large
number of workers. At the same time it’s a narrow decision." Tobin estimates
that the ruling only affects the roughly 15,000 women who worked at AT&T and
took maternity leave before the PDA was put into place.

But Marcia McCormick, a law professor at the Cumberland
School of Law and a contributor to Workplace Prof Blog, estimates this ruling
might have a more sinister impact on constitutional law. One of the most
disturbing things is that it seems to suggest that pregnancy discrimination is
not sex discrimination. That determination could have vast and reaching impacts
on women in this country.

"I am a little worried about what this is going to do about
constitutional analyses, even beyond potentially the employment context,"
McCormick said. "There are lots of situations in which the government interacts
with women in relation to their pregnancies or deciding not to become
pregnant."

The Hulteen ruling
reaffirms a long-since disputed view of the Court. After the Civil Rights Act became
law, many lower courts ruled that pregnancy discrimination was a form of sex
discrimination, using the reasoning that only women can become pregnant. But in
1976, the Supreme Court ruled
in the case of General Electric Co. v.
Gilbert that pregnancy discrimination was not sex discrimination. The
opinion, delivered by Justice William Rehnquist, described General Electric’s
plan "as representing a gender-free assignment of risks in accordance with
normal actuarial techniques. From this perspective the lone exclusion of
pregnancy is not a violation of Title VII insofar as all other disabilities are
mutually covered for both sexes."

It didn’t take long for the public outrage at this ruling to
cause Congress to pass the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and make it clear that
pregnancy discrimination is, in fact, illegal under the Civil Rights Act. The
law stated,
"women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions shall
be treated the same for all employment-related purposes, including receipt of
benefits under fringe benefit programs, as other persons not so affected but
similar in their ability or inability to work." The PDA said that pregnancy was
no different from other forms of disability, and should be treated as such.

In terms of Hulteen,
the court was primarily concerned with "seniority systems" and that because AT&T
treating pregnancy leave as personal
leave was considered legal at the time, the company is not required to amend its
pension system now. But, as Justice Ruth
Bader Ginsberg noted in her dissent, "[The plaintiffs] seek pension benefits,
now and in the future, equal to the benefits received by others employed for
the same length of time. The actionable conduct of which they complain is
AT&T’s denial of equal benefits to plaintiffs "in the post-PDA world."

Drexel University College of Law professor David Cohen
agreed with Ginsberg’s take on the case. "What we can say is that an employer
shouldn’t be able to do things now that continue to perpetuate discrimination
based on pregnancy, which is what AT&T is doing. They’re paying pension
based on differential calculations based on pregnancy-current action. It’s not
past action."

The underlying context in this case is that pregnancy
discrimination, like other forms of discrimination cases, are becoming harder
and harder to win. A recent study published in the Harvard Review of Law &
Policy found [PDF] that
"Compared to other plaintiffs, [those who allege employment discrimination]
manage fewer resolutions early in litigation, and so they have to proceed to
trial more often. They win a lower proportion of cases during pretrial and at
trial. Then, more of their successful cases undergo appeal. On appeal, they
have a harder time both in upholding their successes and in reversing adverse
outcomes." Plaintiffs who prevail in employment discrimination cases are becoming
ever scarcer.

The reasons for this are complicated, McCormick said. The
kind of discrimination that people experience today tends not to be overt. It’s
often a subtle form of discrimination in which employers either don’t disclose their biases
or sometimes even aren’t aware of them. "Some people say that’s not what Title
VII was designed to reach," McCormick said. "I personally argue that people
just don’t agree on what discrimination is anymore. Maybe they never did."

Another high-profile case brought this into light, the Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire Co. case of 2007.
Arguing that Lilly Ledbetter ought to
have filed her pay discrimination complaint within 180 days of her first
discriminatory paycheck, the court refused to grant Lilly Ledbetter back pay
for her years of sex discrimination. It was a cause around which women’s rights
advocates and women generally rallied, and which resulted in passage of the
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act earlier this year. The Hulteen
ruling, because it affects a much smaller segment of the population, is
unlikely to evoke such a popular movement for Congress to reverse the decision,
although some feel that they should.

"Congress can step in and rectify this decision too by
passing a law that makes it clear that this kind of pension program based on
differential treatment of pregnancy is unlawful," Drexel University’s Cohen
said. "The administration can put regulations [in place] that are consistent
with statute that make it clear that certain things are unlawful based on sex
discrimination. Other branches of government and state courts and state
governments are going to have to step in because the Supreme Court is not a
sympathetic venue right now."

Cohen points to the fact that the Supreme Court has
consistently been ruling against those that bring forth discrimination cases,
much as in the Ledbetter ruling. It’s
not beside the point to note that the court is composed mostly of white men. In
fact, a recent study
of judges in sex discrimination cases determined that women were 10 percent
more likely to rule in favor of plaintiffs in such cases, regardless of
political ideology. When the Lilly Ledbetter Act was passed in the Senate,
every female senator voted in favor of the law, regardless of political party.

It would seem that President Obama’s indication that he’s in
favor of appointing a female justice to replace Souter is well justified if the
interests of victims of discrimination are to be better protected by the Supreme
Court. Still, there are some that are less optimistic. "The issue is that we
have five justices — Justice Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Kennedy, and Chief Justice
Roberts — who are relatively young for Supreme Court justices, they’re very
conservative, they’re not at all sympathetic to women," Cohen said. "Getting
newer, more progressive, younger justices would certainly be good long-term
because they’ll be on the court a lot longer, but it’s not until the five
conservative justices are changed that we’re going to see any improvement."

]]>http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2009/05/27/supreme-court-decision-pretends-pregnancy-discrimination-doesnt-harm-women/feed/1Colombian LGTB Community Recognizes Progress While Calling For Further Rightshttp://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2009/02/27/colombian-lgtb-community-recognizes-progress-while-calling-for-further-rights/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=colombian-lgtb-community-recognizes-progress-while-calling-for-further-rights
http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2009/02/27/colombian-lgtb-community-recognizes-progress-while-calling-for-further-rights/#commentsFri, 27 Feb 2009 07:00:00 +0000Colombian LGBT organizations recognized some legal advancement regarding equal rights, but noted that the progress was due to legal demands made by individuals, not a consequence of a public policy or a legislative action.

]]>
More than 30
Colombian organizations of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transvestite,
transformer, trans and intersex persons (LGBTTTTI) recently disclosed a report submitted
to the Colombian government regarding the state of LGBTTTTI rights in the
framework of the Universal Periodic Review of Human Rights.

The United Nations’ General Assembly has mandated that the Human Rights Council (HRC) "undertake a universal periodic review (UPR), based on objective and reliable
information, of the fulfillment by each State of its human rights obligations
and commitments in a manner which ensures universality of coverage and equal
treatment with respect to all States…"

The third round of the UPR took place
in Geneva, December 10, 2008, with Colombia among the countries reviewed. The
Colombian report was followed by a dialogue in which 43 countries submitted
recommendations, asked questions, and pointed out facts. While most of the
comments addressed human rights violations related to the current Colombian
armed conflict, some underlined the marginalization of indigenous nations,
while others called for the defense of women’s rights and the protection of the
people with minority sexual and gender identities.

In particular, the Czech Republic
demanded equality related to sexual orientation and gender identity,
recommending the implementation of campaigns aimed to promote a
non-discriminatory culture.

Although LGBTTTTI organizations were
not included in the consultant process carried out among the civil society by
the Colombian government, they developed their own report of the state of their
rights.

"We are not considered valid
interlocutors for the government due to the ruling prejudices regarding our
demands, because our demands are considered matters of low importance compared
to the ‘big’ topics of human rights," they stated in their report.

The LGBTTTTI organizations recognized
some legal advancement regarding equal rights, but noted that the progress was
due to legal demands made by individuals, not a consequence of a public policy
or a legislative action.

"The advancement through judicial
actions is a common path. It happened also in Canada and in other countries. In
Colombia, the reason [for] this is that the high Courts made their decisions
based in judicial arguments, whereas the parliament’s decisions are influenced
by moral, religious and political interests," said Marcela Sánchez, Director
of the NGO Colombia Diversa, an
organization that works in favor of the rights of the LBGT community.

Over the last
two years the Constitutional Court of Colombia has made three rulings granting
some equal rights to same sex couples.
The Court handed down a ruling stating that same sex couples able to
demonstrate that they have lived together for two years legally have the same
patrimonial rights as heterosexual unions. The same Court also ruled that gays
and lesbians can register their partners to become beneficiaries of social
security coverage.

Finally, a
suit from Colombia Diversa resulted in a ruling dictating that in the event of
the death of a member of a same sex couple, the surviving partner would have
the right to draw on the pension of his or her deceased partner.

"We celebrate
this progress, but there remain many inequalities. For example, we are not yet
allowed to get married," stated Camilo Vargas, Academic coordinator of the LGTB
Circle of the University De Los Andes.

The report
highlighted the deaths of members of the LGBTTTTI community resulting from
actions by police officers and military officers, specifically because of their
identities. The report went on to list some cases of murder of and attacks
against transvestites, "which have not been investigated in an appropriate
manner by the Colombian state."

These
findings mirrored the concern stated in the United Nations High Commission of
Human Rights in its report from February 2008, about "social cleansing," including
murders due to victims’ sexual orientation.

The LGBTTTTI
community’s report also highlights the more broadly understood discrimination
in work places and educational institutions.
Early this year a young lesbian student was rejected from school because
of her sexual orientation, provoking national protest. The school was later
forced by the court to admit her.

"There are
situations of high intolerance, but our rights are more recognized and the
number of sectors supporting us is increasing," added Sánchez.

]]>
Women may pay up to 140% more for individual health insurance than men do, and NBC Nightly News has picked up the story. Largely condemning the practice of "gender-rating," the segment explains that no federal guidelines determining health insurance costs on the individual market. Reporter Dr. Nancy Snyderman points out that women can even be denied health insurance if they are victims of domestic violence.

The strangest part of the segment? Snyderman says that the insurance industry is "looking for solutions beyond gender" to address the 47 million Americans without health insurance. Widespread un- and underinsurance is a legitimate issue, but gender is a necessary lens if insurers are to address discriminatory insurance costs.

]]>http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2008/11/14/video-nbc-nightly-news-highlights-health-insurance-discrimination/feed/1In Jamaica HIV Affects More than Just Healthhttp://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2008/08/16/in-jamaica-hiv-affects-more-just-health/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=in-jamaica-hiv-affects-more-just-health
http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2008/08/16/in-jamaica-hiv-affects-more-just-health/#commentsSat, 16 Aug 2008 08:29:54 +0000In a cultural climate with too many examples of stigma and discrimination against people living with HIV, a proposed plan in Jamaica to protect the right of HIV-positive workers could symbolize a major step in the way the country treats this key issue.

]]>
In a reflective mood, I took a look back at my past articles for RH Reality Check, and in so doing, noticed
a common theme. I write a lot of the need to re-shape cultural
values, and the inherent tension that exists between those who address
reproductive health issues from a moralist perspective, and those who
approach these issues from a rights-based value system. I have seen, both
in my pieces and in others that I have read, the commitment to recreate
our cultural value systems through education, with the hope that such
efforts will shift the fundamentalist tides that seem intent on challenging
any viewpoints that are not based on religious underpinnings.

It is leading
me to ask, now what? This is a question (and in many ways a challenge)
that I actually want to throw out there. I want to hear real suggestions
and real comments. I’m feeling a little jaded. Although I unquestioningly
believe in the value of education, particularly as it relates to providing
information as a means of challenging the status quo, I really do want
to know how to move beyond the rhetoric.

These questions
arose after I read an article in the Jamaican newspaper, outlining
plans by the current government to implement a policy that will protect
the rights of HIV/AIDS infected and affected persons within the workplace.
In light of statistics that indicate that a large majority of the HIV/AIDS
infected population fall within the 20 – 60 age group, or the working
class, such a policy would appear to be long overdue.

Amidst a cultural
climate in which there still remain too many strong – and sometimes
shocking – examples of stigma
and discrimination,
such a move could symbolize a major step in the ways we treat with this
key issue. What it could do is move the discussions
around HIV/AIDS away from a strictly health-centered or moralistic approaches,
to one that recognizes that HIV/AIDS affects far more than health and behavior, but affects
development at all levels – from the workplace, to the economy, to
the social advancement of our respective countries.

Importantly,
the proposed policy also appears to address the gendered nature of HIV/AIDS,
an acknowledgment that will hopefully take account of the significantly
different ways in which women and men understand, manage and react to
their sexual lives, and by extension, the sexual health choices that
they make. Such analyses will hopefully take what has worked from
disciplines such as feminism, by fully incorporating key concepts such
as "power" into their analysis.

The policy
also speaks to the issue of education, calling on employers – in conjunction
with their employees – to develop "culturally appropriate" and "gender-sensitive" education programs that will collectively work
to shift the ways in which we speak of, understand, and deal with HIV/AIDS
and those affected by it.

Undeniably,
this is a necessary move, as the lack of accurate information has proven
to be one of the major forces that retards progressive change — but
is it enough? When placed in a cultural environment in which some people
still believe that contracting the disease is a punishment for immoral
behavior (particularly as it relates to the issue of homosexuality),
how will such policies fare?

Admittedly,
research has shown that there have been positive changes in local attitudes towards persons
living with HIV/AIDS. Access to information does play a vital
role in shaping our cultural belief systems. It does go a far way towards
debunking harmful myths such as "sleeping with a virgin cures AIDS,"
and "white rum and marijuana kills AIDS." However, when information
is not contextualized, and provided alongside concerted participatory
efforts to reshape our old, troublesome values, it can only go so far.
Which brings me back to my initial question: where do we go from here?

]]>http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2008/08/16/in-jamaica-hiv-affects-more-just-health/feed/1Canada’s Political Secrethttp://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2007/08/30/canadas-political-secret/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=canadas-political-secret
http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2007/08/30/canadas-political-secret/#commentsThu, 30 Aug 2007 07:48:00 +0000How is it that our neighbor to the north manages to enact the liberal legislation the U.S. can't seem to pass?

]]>In Canada, religion has always played a part in politics. I don't think that this is unique to Canada – it's something that every country on earth has in common. Why shouldn't religion play a part, after all? For most of our recent history, religion has framed society's values and morality. And yet the idea that church and state should be separate is not new. In fact, centuries of politicians, political scientists, and philosophers argued that the state should not be influenced solely by the church.

In Canada the Liberal government in the late 1960s, and in specific Justice Minister Pierre Trudeau (whom would later become Prime Minister), began to revise laws which had in the past been dictated by the church's stance. The laws were those that dealt with divorce, abortion, and homosexuality. Trudeau famously said, "the government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation." Since then social conservatives in Canada have challenged the liberalization of these laws by saying that they are destroying Canadian society and the family. But each progressive government has moved forward with the help of another very important document that Trudeau as Prime Minister enshrined in our Constitution: the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This Charter of Rights in Freedoms guarantees each Canadian citizen the right of non-discrimination. With the help of the Canadian Supreme Court and their interpretations of the Charter, many challenges to laws which could be seen as restrictive have been removed. Most recently, the Charter formed the basis for Canada's Same Sex Marriage Act. As same-sex couples began to challenge marriage laws that stated that marriage could only be entered into by a man and a women, the Liberal government under former Prime Minister Paul Martin passed a legislation that opened up marriage to twp people of any sex.

So why is it then that in Canada we have been able to pass laws that are inclusive and anti-discrimination, when our American counterparts are struggling on some very important issues, namely abortion and same-sex marriage? Is it that Canada is more liberal? That's unlikely – there are pockets of social conservatism all over Canada, and some of which are very, very powerful. Is it that religion doesn't play such an important role in our political life? Again, unlikely – the leaders of conservative parties who have been the official opposition to Canada's Liberal governments in the past have been headed by fundamentalist Christians including Preston Manning and Stockwell Day. Although our current Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, can not be considered a fundamentalist Christian, he has strong ties to the Christian community, members of which are still very powerful inside of his party.

I would argue that the difference is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This Charter has single-handedly allowed Canadians of any race, creed, and orientation to protect themselves against anti-discrimination and challenge laws that are oppressive to their rights as individuals. It also helps that because the job of the Supreme Court of Canada is to interpret the Charter, and that most of the judges have been able to interpret without the bias of religion. Their main concerns are the rights of individual citizens as guaranteed by our charter. Whether or not politicians listen to their own religious biases in passing legislation is irrelevant when each citizen is protected by such a powerful document.